masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:M-44 Hammerhead
Because of the availability of this as a download, I think it would be a fair assumption that no "current" planet will support its use. DLC planets and missions surely will, but otherwise, why make it DLC if it can be used on current ones? Maybe some areas will unlock to make its immediate download worthwhile. Maybe it will at least come packaged with a drivable planet.--Xaero Dumort 18:33, January 19, 2010 (UTC) :I think it's just an, "Everything's cooler with hover," vehicle. Functionally similar to the Mako, but just drives different. Maybe isn't utterly defeated by lava lakes. That's my complete speculation, anyways. Boter 04:04, January 21, 2010 (UTC) I think the DLC comes with new maps, so it will likely only be useful on those planets. (Frosted Vert 17:37, January 21, 2010 (UTC)) Looks like the Hammerhead is out or in beta right now. There are some illicit and exclusive links around the net that allow for the download of this content already. I really hate being "legal" lol; I have to wait on everything >_> Mass Effect 3 In the most recent Game Informer (isuue 204), there is an interview with Casey Hudson. He says "we've been working on a new vehicle that will appear in future DLC and potentially Mass Effect 3". It is reasonable to assume this is referring to the hammerhead. Should it be put in this article that it will most likely appear in ME3, or is that speculation? Dtemps123 02:35, March 17, 2010 (UTC) :I'm going to have to say that unless it's specifically stated that the vehicle in question is the Hammerhead, it's speculation. We have an unnamed vehicle (that could be the Hammerhead) that may be featured in ME3. SpartHawg948 03:32, March 17, 2010 (UTC) The M57 page - the place to moan about the Mako Kind of funny to see that's what this page is all about... Dch2404 17:04, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Designation? Does anyone know yet what the designation for the Hammerhead is? M29 Grizzly, M35 Mako, ??? Hammerhead? Boter 04:04, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :Not yet, but most likely higher than 35, maybe M41 to continue a 6 digit gap?--Xaero Dumort 04:34, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Well, if the SA numbering system is anything like the numbering systems used by contemporary militaries, there would only be a 6 digit gap if there were 5 models in between the Mako and the Hammerhead. Of course, since the Hammerhead is a tank, and the Grizzly and Mako are IFVs, it shouldn't be automatically assumed that they use the same numbering/designation system. SpartHawg948 06:56, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah, I wasn't even sure of the first letter, which is why I didn't say M??. I think their explanation for the difference would be its mode of transport - ground or hover. I think the Mako has been referred to as a tank a few times... I could be wrong, though. *looks it up* Hm, nope. Still, I wonder if calling the Hammerhead a "tank" is just something for the masses to easily latch on to - a moving vehicle with a big turret - but it'll still be functionally similar to a Mako. We'll see in a week and a half, I guess. (Fun fact - I didn't know about the Mako's big gun until halfway through my first play-through. First Thresher Maw was a pain in the rear.) Boter 07:04, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::Pretty sure the Mako was never referred to as a tank, at least not in the game. The Codex specifically refers to it as an infantry fighting vehiclc. As for calling the Hammerhead a tank, I don't see any reason to assume it would be a term for the "masses" to easily latch onto. If that was the case the Mako would also likely be called a tank, since the average civilian doesn't know the difference between a tank or an IFV, and they've generally never even heard the term IFV. After all, the Mako is a moving vehicle with a big turret too. So yeah, I think it's safe to say that if it's being called a tank, it's b/c it's a tank. SpartHawg948 07:12, January 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::Fair enough. Can't wait to find out in five days :D Boter 20:31, January 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I count three designations: M29 Grizzly, M35 Mako, M38 Moby. The last is on Bioware's page about the Mako. The name Moby is a reference to the titular character in Moby Dick, and the appearance of the Mako painted in white. The Moby is an ambulance. I believe Arcelia Silva Martinez or Simon Atwell referred to the Mako as a tank.Throwback 04:55, January 25, 2010 (UTC) Maybe it will work like the shuttle - everyone will actually walk/jump/hop/whatever into it instead of magically getting in via osmosis. All I can think of (after playing through at least half of the game) is that it will only be able to be used on new maps (maybe a whole line of them?) If not, then, damn, that's one small tank o_o. Anyways, I hope it will actually FEEL like a tank when you use it, and not some cheesy spinoff or something. Possibly could be used as a mobile base (as in weapon selection/armormaybe even tech upgrades?) or something. Hopefully when they put this in it will also add floor #5 for the Normandy, as I get ticked off seeing it and going to it in a cutscene but not being able to go to it normally. Maybe tank upgrades? Anywho. Brainfart over. :Maybe the planets are already in the game and you just need to download the Hammerhead to access them.--ScorpSt 07:44, February 6, 2010 (UTC) @Sparthawg948: Military designations are "Model" and "Year" meaning that a tank implemented in 1995 would be designated as the "M95", if you make upgrades it might get an adendum to the model name in the form of "M95a1" or "M95a2" Then there's usually further designations that might indicate major upgrades, like on an M113 you change the gearbox and engine as well as the fuel tanks and you get an M113G3 or an M113a3G3 as an example, another designation would be according to country (or in this case a planet would be more appropriate) or if it has several roles it might get another adendum, like the CV90 getting becoming the CV9040 or CV90120 when outfitted with a 40mm gun or a 120mm mortar/barrel. 14:24, February 6, 2010 (UTC) Please don't mention a certain tv show... please... it's that bunch o' numbers you put there :P So the M1 Abrahms tank was designed and built, when, 2001? 1901? The M1 Abrahms was introduced in 1980, so you are very much incorrect about the year being the model number. In the military, For ships and aircraft, it's done in sequential design numbers, normally. Exceptions: F117, SR-71... No idea on tanks, but it definitely isn't *year*. AlexMcpherson 23:32, February 6, 2010 (UTC) We have five military-type vehicles with known designations: the M29 Grizzly, the M35 Mako, the M38 'Moby' (variant of the M35, used as an ambulance), the M57 Hammerhead, and the M-080.Throwback 00:00, February 7, 2010 (UTC) The designation isn't always by year, true but it is or have been a very common way of designating weapons and vehicles, maybe I should have phrased it better but I have personal experience with the year corresponding with the designation on several occations. I'm not just throwing some ridiculous idea out there, it has a basis in fact and might be relevant (I'm not quite sure of what year mass effect is portrayed in). Also, wth do you mean by mentioning a TV-show?! 14:00, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :You asked so... Ahem. the show '90210' (You put 90120) ... *shudder*. Don't like that show. AlexMcpherson 16:54, February 15, 2010 (UTC) He said 90120...Anyway, in-game the hammerhead is referred to as an IFV not a tank. Dtemps123 00:54, March 25, 2010 (UTC) New PC patch notes points to Hammerhead release coming soon? http://social.bioware.com/page/me2-patches Changes to 1.01 * Fixed video hitching and crashes related to single core machines. * Single core users may experience short periods of black screen that may last up a few seconds between level loads, cinematic transitions or movies. * In rare cases, some single core users may notice dialog lines in certain conversations may be delayed up to a few seconds. * Fixed an issue where it appears ammunition can be picked up, but can't. * Fixed an issue where all Codex entries were marked as 'viewed', even if the player chose not to view them. * Fixed an issue where weapon icons are re-organized after downloadable content is used. * Fixed an issue where pressing F9 after the mission completion screen reset Shepard to Level 1. * Fixed an issue where remapping the right mouse button blocks camera control in the command HUD. * Fixed an issue where remapping the 'use' command affects the decryption minigame. * Fixed an issue where users were not prompted to restart when logging in to a different EA Online account. * Fixed an issue where movies do not play in DLC. * It is recommended that players reset their keyboard mapping to default values to ensure proper vehicle control. * Added useful messaging during the ME1 save game import. * Weapon icon for henchmen never changes from Collector Assault Rifle. * Czech language - Issues with Czech localization (subtitles) were amended, all text was corrected and improved. * Fixed an issue where the Mass Effect 2 launcher was being associated with files that have no extension. * Fixed an issue where uninstalling the game under Windows Vista or Windows 7 might uninstall Mass Effect 1. Here's hoping. I'm just sitting on a completed game waiting for the DLC to keep coming down the pipe.--Xaero Dumort 08:32, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Firewalker pack Finally, some good news! Signed by Naihilus Ceris 03:09, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :But I want it now!--Xaero Dumort 06:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed! I too prefer instant gratification! :) SpartHawg948 06:32, February 26, 2010 (UTC) :: According to Wikipedia, new ME2 DLC (Firewalker pack, I assume) will be shown at Game Developer Conference taking place from March 9-13; knowing Bioware, this means that we will get Hammerhead quite soon! |Signed by Naihilus Ceris| 15:06, February 26, 2010 (UTC) Hammerhead footage There is now footage of the Hammerhead hereunder the section, "Here comes the hammer." Bastian964 21:45, March 6, 2010 (UTC) Pictures Since actual footage of the Hammerhead was released, the pictures in this article need to be updated. The current pictures are of earlier designs for the Hammerhead.Bastian964 02:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC) The art one is old but not the screenshot. It looks exactly like the Hammerhead in the newest screenshots on the game site. There is no difference so the screenshot is not a picture of an "earlier" version of the Hammerhead. It is a picture of the same Hammerhead that we will all get tomorrow. :Watch the video or actually look at the screenshots (those weren't release today by the way). Look at the fins. Then come back and tell just how wrong you were. Bastian964 19:26, March 22, 2010 (UTC) How can you trust leaked videos from pirates? Can not you wait for the DLC to be released before making conclusions? :Yah, you can. Especially since the gamespot trailer was the video I was referring to. Also its almost impossible to fake videos like that without investing months of your time.Bastian964 02:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC) M-44 - not M57 Now that the DLC is out and we know the proper designation, shouldn't the page title be changed? The Trivia section can include mention of the fact that up until release, it was shown to be M57 in screenshots, videos, etc. HOLY CRAP!OMG! This thing moves at insane speeds and jumps ridiculously high.Fast enough that boosting from the right distance can launch a geth across the map,and high enough that jumping to max hight and landing on a geth colossus' back will kill it immediately :First not an appropite title for a, well any seciton of a page. Two sign your posts. Lancer1289 01:55, March 24, 2010 (UTC) :: lighten up. this is a discussion page on a video game wiki, who cares what someone puts here. and i am guessing that not everyone signs all their posts. ~ :::This is a discussion page on a video game wiki. And discussion pages are for discussing the article, not for inane comments like the first one here. The admins care, as it's our job to make sure that the policies of the site are being followed. And while it is true that not everyone signs all their posts, we do ask that everyone sign all their posts, and while it's accepted that anonymous editors usually don't, we do expect all registered users (such as the one who started this thread and didn't sign their post) to sign their posts. Hope this helped clear up the issues raised in your lovely comment. SpartHawg948 20:42, March 30, 2010 (UTC) ::::What I am saying is that instead of nitpicking about the title or him not signing his posts, maybe address the content of his post. I agree that is is inappropriate, but posts like the second one don't help anyone. It is clear the the original poster doesn't care about any of that, so to bring up the issue like he did is counterproductive. Appreciate the sarcasm as well.